Several days ago the attached letter was received from Ms. Eva Segerblom, attorney for the ACHOA (all of us property owners). The letter requests that Concerned Neighbors of ArrowCreek (CNA) provide documentation “…that CNA has met the minimum requirements to be organized as an entity in the State of Nevada, and as required by the Secretary of State.”

[Below please see the total paragraph NRS 116.31035 (the numbers are hyperlinked here and below to the on-line 116.31035 regulation) of which subsection 1 is quoted by Ms. Segerblom; if you read a little further, subsection 2 contains the sentence that CNA is using to request equal voice and space. Nowhere in 116 is there any statement of requirements of what an “opposing view organization” is.]

So, dutifully, the Secretary’s offices were contacted and the following discoveries were made: 1.) From the Business Division: No business license is required for a purely political/dissident organization that isn’t producing anything tangible, thank you very much for your inquiry; 2.) next was a transfer to the Elections Division and they stated that they do not get involved in HOA politics/political disagreements. They aren’t aware of any registration requirement for such a group within an HOA/CIC. The conclusion is that the ACHOA is in entirely new territory and there aren’t any applicable statutes or regulations that apply. Organized dissent is not recognized by NRS 116. It is a family feud that they want no part of.

CONCLUSION: One more ‘speed bump’ has been eliminated and the property owners against buying the golf club can be known as the Concerned Neighbors of ArrowCreek (CNA) with no need for a business license, organized structure or roster. The Segerblom letter does nothing to serve the ACHOA members – Did I mention we were members of the ArrowCreek HOA?

NRS 116.31035 Publications containing mention of candidate or ballot question: Requirements; limitations.
1. If an official publication contains any mention of a candidate or ballot question, the official publication must, upon request and under the same terms and conditions, provide equal space to all candidates or to a representative of an organization which supports the passage or defeat of the ballot question.2. If an official publication contains the views or opinions of the association, the executive board, a community manager or an officer, employee or agent of an association concerning an issue of official interest, the official publication must, upon request and under the same terms and conditions, provide equal space to opposing views and opinions of a unit’s owner of the common-interest community.
3. If an association has a closed-circuit television station and that station interviews, or provides time to, a candidate or a representative of an organization which supports the passage or defeat of a ballot question, the closed-circuit television station must, under the same terms and conditions, allow equal time for all candidates or a representative of an opposing view to the ballot question.
4. The association and its officers, employees and agents are immune from criminal or civil liability for any act or omission which arises out of the publication or disclosure of any information related to any person and which occurs in the course of carrying out any duties required pursuant to subsection 1, 2 or 3.
5. As used in this section:
(a) “Issue of official interest” means:
(1) Any issue on which the executive board or the units’ owners will be voting, including, without limitation, elections; and
(2) The enactment or adoption of rules or regulations that will affect the common-interest community.
(b) “Official publication” means:
(1) An official website;
(2) An official newsletter or other similar publication that is circulated to each unit’s owner; or
(3) An official bulletin board that is available to each unit’s owner.
(Added to NRS by 2011, 2414)

11 Responses to Speed Bumps and the Fog of Battle

It is probably time for the Concerned Citizens of ArrowCreek, be they part of CNA or not to follow the process allowed by our Governing documents and call for the removal of ALL current Directors of the ACHOA. There may be enough discontent now to overcome the minority in support of FOA, which seems to control the board and committees primarily responsible for FOA related decisions.

Have I just died and gone back (in time) to the USSR? Instead of welcoming and facilitating open and TWO way communication and discussion, obstacles are being put up. Instead of enforcing our Articles of Incorporation specifying a two thirds majority vote to change them, the same lawyer was paid with OUR money to argue a way around them. The intent could not be clearer. This is shameful! How can the board continue to claim that they are not “forcing anything” on us with this golf club purchase?

I can’t believe how underhanded, devious and childish our HOA Board can be. These board members (so called educated people) were elected to represent us ArrowCreek residents. To the members of the board – why don’t you knock off the crap, let the Golf Club do its thing without your intervention, do your job and refrain from this petty attack on CNA. I’am sure every Realtor in Reno is aware of all this fighting going on in ArrowCreek and steering their clients away. We would like to sell in the near future and all this bickering will hurt all of us.

Dear AC Resident – Please remember that the ACHOA board does not respond to any comments or questions on this ArrowCreek411 website. If you really want an ACHOA Board response to any questions you may have (i.e. your questions are not rhetorical), you must send them (as an email or letter) to the ACHOA Board through Associa at acservice@associasn.com or c/o Jeanne Tarantino 10509 Professional Cir # 200, Reno, NV 89521.

All,
Whether you disagree with the ACHOA Board or not, you have to agree that one of the goals of acquiring the golf course was to “bring us together.” It has, just not in the manner that was envisioned by the golf enthusiasts. It has brought new light and changes to the ACHOA, a very good thing as no one would want a stale HOA! However, change is frightening if you’ve lived in an ivory tower without feedback from ‘The Community’ (average attendance at an ACHOA Board meeting was 10 to 12 people). The awakening of the community, thanks to trying to acquire the golf course, has been the cause of all kinds of new growth and exposure that the ‘law,’ NRS 116, is not the only guidance that the ACHOA Board must respond to. We are and have been breaking new ground with one of the largest HOAs in the State. Unfortunately, new ground means lots of billable hours by attorneys unless the ACHOA Board accepts that some of the owners in ArrowCreek have already done the due diligence and the answers are complete and should be accepted and implemented as requested. Additionally, instead of trying to frustrate the ‘new voices’ they should be included in the secretive committee processes to provide guidance on a better course for our ACHOA.
Ron Duncan

To our HOA Board. Why are you spending our money on legal fees, trying to shut down the voice of HOA Members that disagree with you (The Concerned Neighbors of ArrowCreek) & (ArrowCreek 411)? It is now more than obvious that you want to operate behind the members backs and do so with no opposition. Last year, without us knowing, you spent thousands of dollars on those photo radar speed signs. They are illegal to use in Nevada and I don’t care what your attorney says. You can always shop for an attorney that agrees with you. The photo radar signs make our community look tacky and more than that they don’t work. Cars slow down at the signs and then immediately speed up after passing them. Our previous Director of Security (Retired Police Lieutenant) was much more proactive in reducing speeding. He would operate the hand held radar gun and place himself where he couldn’t be seen. I guess our current Director of Security feels it would take to much of his time to get out and use the radar gun that we had already paid for and was effective. Because of that we had to pay thousands of dollars for those ineffective and tacky photo radar signs.

Dear ArrowCreek Homeowner, as I noted to AC Homeowner above, please remember that the ACHOA board does not respond to any comments or questions on this “unofficial” ArrowCreek411 website. If you really want an ACHOA Board response to any questions you may have (i.e. your questions are not rhetorical), you must send them (as an email or letter) to the ACHOA Board through Associa at acservice@associasn.com or c/o Jeanne Tarantino 10509 Professional Cir # 200, Reno, NV 89521.

This site does not purport to be an official website sanctioned by the ArrowCreek Homeowners' Association Board of Directors. It is however, owned by an ArrowCreek homeowner, a member of the ArrowCreek HOA.

This site is intended to provide a community service with information gathered from multiple sources and with unedited (except for snarky or foul language) comments from readers and contributors. It is hoped that you find something of interest among the links along the right side of the page and the blog posts.